|
Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
hmmmmm...
Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 9
|
 Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 5:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| And I forgot to add: thinking and learning about things like this (language aquisition, the theory behind instruction, etc.) is something I'd like to learn more about. Do they cover this in the TESOL cert programs, or is that something I would get only in graduate school? Obviously, there's just not enough time in the four-week courses to explore those topics in detail, but I'm just curious if they give you a decent introduction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Justin Trullinger
Joined: 28 Jan 2005
Posts: 3110
Location: Seoul, South Korea and Myanmar for a bit
|
| Posted: Fri May 19, 2006 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| However, are there cases where students without that basic grammar are taught in English only? |
Absolutely. And once you know how to do it, it really isn't a handicap. Presents some advantages, in fact.
I'm sure it happens all over the globe, but the countries I know of it being widespread in are: the US, the UK, Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, and a few others. Do you recognise the pattern?
| Quote: |
| thinking and learning about things like this (language aquisition, the theory behind instruction, etc.) is something I'd like to learn more about. Do they cover this in the TESOL cert programs, or is that something I would get only in graduate school? |
Usually, on a four week TESOL course, the introduction to these things is brief and general. Grad school or independent study is the place to learn about them in detail. Some certificate courses contain more content related to this than others, but in general, four weeks is a short time. TESOL cert courses are practical in focus, and tend to deal only with the theoretical elements apply directly and concisely to the practice of teaching.
I find language aquisition theory and theoretical linguistics to be fascinating, but I know many language teachers who do not. In general, the more theoretical side of linguistics is peripheral to the act of teaching a language. One who knows both sees a lot of paralels, but it's possible to teach without knowing a lot of linguistic theory, or to know a lot of linguistic theory and be unable to teach a language.
Educational psych and theories of learning, in my experience, have more to do with the experiences of teachers, and have more direct classroom applications.
Best,
Justin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GambateBingBangBOOM
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 2021
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hmmmmm... wrote: |
| And I forgot to add: thinking and learning about things like this (language aquisition, the theory behind instruction, etc.) is something I'd like to learn more about. Do they cover this in the TESOL cert programs, or is that something I would get only in graduate school? Obviously, there's just not enough time in the four-week courses to explore those topics in detail, but I'm just curious if they give you a decent introduction. |
If you do a certificate through a university, then yes they are covered extensively (they, along with things like grammar and other linguist stuff, are the point of those courses). But that kind of certificate is a year at a university after finishing a BA, so it has very little in common with a four week private certificate (although because both are labled 'certificate' they are often treated as equal by employers) and a lot in common with an MA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Wed May 24, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My students are taught in an 'English immersion' setting. There is no direct translation permitted. Students lose marks if they speak any language other than English or bring electronic translators or bilingual dictionaries to class. It may sound a bit harsh, but it forces them to think in their target language. I believe they learn much more quickly like this, and their speech and writing ends up being more natural because eventually they stop doing L2-L1 and L1-L2 translations in their heads. They 'pick it up'. How can you become fluent in a second language if you are constantly translating everything into your first language for "better understanding"?
When I was teaching in Taiwan, I taught an "experimental" class, as my boss called it. It was experimental because mine was the only class being taught completely in English, without translation (my Chinese ability was rather pitiful and I didn't even attempt to use it in class). Interestingly enough, my students learned English much more quickly than those in classes with Taiwanese teachers who taught mostly in Chinese. In fact, after a year, they had better English than most of the teachers! They all spoke with a very authentic accent (they actually sounded like a group of young Canadians after one year with me!), and they reproduced language in their writing much the way a native speaker would. The other students still had very stilted, robotic writing and speech.
Call me a 'naysayer' if you will. I don't think translation helps anyone learn a second language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
